A note on the "hidden" materials below : As mentioned, each section of this guide includes – beside the common readings – three subsections, one for an analytical task , one for recommended readings , and one for related readings . To simplify navigating, only the headings for these subsections are initially visible when you scroll through this page. The content of the subsections are hidden (so that the beginning appearance of the page is similar to a standard syllabus) until the viewer clicks on a subsection heading, then its contents will appear. While this organization is helpful for negotiating the page most of the time, it can be an obstacle to searching the page (for example, for a particular article) as searches on a web page will ignore any hidden material. To overcome this. it is possible to reveal all the hidden sections at once by clicking the § symbol at the top, right corner of this page. (Simply reload the page to collapse all the "hidden" sections to their usual look). The table of contents near the top of the page will work to aid speedy navigation to any section. Clicking the Table of Contents button always available in the lower right corner will jump to the table of contents from anyplace.
There are reams of literature addressing whether these two definitions are the same and, if not, to which of them Hume gives primacy. Robinson is perhaps the staunchest proponent of the position that the two are nonequivalent, arguing that there is an nonequivalence in meaning and that they fail to capture the same extension. Two objects can be constantly conjoined without our mind determining that one causes the other, and it seems possible that we can be determined that one object causes another without their being constantly conjoined. But if the definitions fail in this way, then it is problematic that Hume maintains that both are adequate definitions of causation. Some scholars have argued for ways of squaring the two definitions (Don Garrett, for instance, argues that the two are equivalent if they are both read objectively or both read subjectively), while others have given reason to think that seeking to fit or eliminate definitions may be a misguided project.